Police action on motorists endangering cyclists

[tinfoilhat]

No. I don't believe that. Motorists are being targeted by the treasury in ways that cyclists (who are NOT also motorists of course) are not. They are paying additional taxes/fees/duties/fines that (non-motoring) cyclists are exempt from. Specific fees that other sectors of society won't be hit with regardless of how much Burgundy and Cuban cigars they may get through.

 

Spandex? Immac? Fancy carbon-fibre helmet cam mounts? Beetroot? True, like everyone else, I really don't have a notion.

 

Eh? There are plenty of cars that are supremely economical and are exempt from VED.

[Cyclone]

Will police also be cracking down on cyclists who under/over-take motorists within 150cm?

 

Are you confusing overtaking with filtering?

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 06:34 ----------

 

I'm sure you know the answer to that. Car insurance, heavily taxed fuel, M.O.T. preparation and testing and, likely VED too. Regardless of 1938, as you'll be aware, it is still a legal requirement to pay it as applicable.

You realise that all low emissions vehicles are zero rated for VED? So you'd like bikes to pay £0.00 for VED (which only applies to motorised vehicles for a good reason)?

I pay the same tax on fuel that you do, it just so happens that my bike doesn't need any.

My car however is probably much less efficient than yours, so can I demand that you pull over and get out of my way, because I'm paying more tax?

 

 

You get the point. By the act of cycling, you are not being fleeced by the treasury anything close to the extent that a car owner is.

 

Car owners often want to reach their destination by travelling at the permissible speed limit, without unnecessary hold-ups such as when groups of cyclists refuse to drop back to single file, regardless of how much of a tailback they may be causing. Motorists pay a considerable premium to be on the highway and many probably see their commuting as having priority.

We all know that cyclists don't actually cause any delay though. Whereas the volume of traffic does. So if I take a car out in the morning that increases your delay, if I take my bike, I'm doing you a favour. You should be paying me!

 

Cycling is a choice. There have always been bad drivers and they won't disappear. Someone in a small classic car might not fair too well against a 2016 MPV. Or someone in an MPV against a truck.

Irrelevant. There are bad drivers and the police should continue to try to remove them from the road.

If they damage your vehicle squeezing past and don't stop that would be leaving the scene of an accident.

Quite true, much like when another driver damages your car...

 

 

 

They are irritating but the inside lane is still there. For driving along. At the speed limit. Which is probably a higher velocity that they are travelling at or they wouldn't be holding you up... I don't let them keep me back for long.

 

Ironic, undertaking is illegal.

[TimmyR]

My experience of this is yes there are plenty of people who overtake too close, its dangerous and this campaign is a good thing. On the flip side there are also people who overtake so wide and pull back in so late that they almost hit the car coming the other way...I always find that hard to believe. Its like they have an exaggerated need to prove they are kind to cyclists (probably because they are one) that they forget to consider the biggest risk to them which is hitting a car coming the other way. I appreciate the gesture but is it really necessary?

Edited September 19, 2016 by TimmyR

[Cyclone]

But not significantly below it without a good reason.

[RootsBooster]

When cyclists pay to be on the road, pay for insurance and obey road signs, then I might have more sympathy for them.

 

Angel1.

 

When you say "pay to be on the road" what exactly do you mean?

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 09:41 ----------

 

How many times a day do you see cyclists riding dangerously and breaking the law?

Quite often, actually. I would say that's to do with seeing the same bunch of cyclists on the same route every day though, it's not representative of all cyclists.

And how many times a day do you see motorists driving dangerously and breaking the law?

Not that many, to be honest. Although I do see a lot of aggressive driving which is potentially dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 09:48 ----------

 

What about cyclists who ignore the highway code and red lights ?

 

what about cyclists who try and ride down the side of vehicles to get to the front of the queue and scratch vehicles doing so ?

 

You seem to be trying to justify one 'bad' with another 'bad'

Edited September 19, 2016 by RootsBooster

[shims]

You realise that all low emissions vehicles are zero rated for VED? So you'd like bikes to pay £0.00 for VED (which only applies to motorised vehicles for a good reason)?

And? All other vehicles AREN'T zero rated. Even if a car is zero rated for VED there are other costs involved in running one, as we are aware. On the second point - that's something YOU have made up, not me.

 

My car however is probably much less efficient than yours, so can I demand that you pull over and get out of my way, because I'm paying more tax?

That's an interesting piece of clairvoyance since you don't know any of the cars I use or how much I drive them.

 

We all know that cyclists don't actually cause any delay though.

That's just some nonsense that you claim. Of course cyclists can cause a delay to other motorists. It entirely depends on the circumstances of the journey.

 

Irrelevant. There are bad drivers and the police should continue to try to remove them from the road.

You are more likely to be taken off the road due to penalty points for speeding than for dangerous driving.

 

It's hardly irrelevant to point out that cycling is a choice and by making that choice you will be putting yourself in a vulnerable position due to having minimal crash protection in an arena full of the general public, many of whom will have little interest in paying proper attention of doing things properly.

 

Quite true, much like when another driver damages your car...

Another motorist will have registration plates for identification and is less likely to make off up the pavement afterwards.

 

Ironic, undertaking is illegal.

Predictable that someone would be along to make this proclamation. Ironic, that you don't realise that it is possible to pass on the left legally.

 

I have corrected that for you.

No you haven't. You've added a caveat.

[RootsBooster]

of course they will.

 

as soon as its proven that a bike riding into a car can kill the inhabitants.

 

If the driver tries to swerve, it can do. Not to mention the possibility of killing others.

[Cyclone]

And? All other vehicles AREN'T zero rated. Even if a car is zero rated for VED there are other costs involved in running one, as we are aware. On the second point - that's something YOU have made up, not me.

I didn't claim that all vehicles are zero rated. I pointed out that there are zero rated cars. So even if VED did apply to non-motorised vehicles (which it doesn't, for good reason), they would be zero rated and the entire process would be pointless.

There are of course costs involved in running a bicycle.

The 2nd "point" was a question. You can tell because it ends with a "?"... Can you answer it?

 

 

That's an interesting piece of clairvoyance since you don't know any of the cars I use or how much I drive them.

It's a guess. I get about 18 - 20 mpg. Should you move out of my way because I pay more tax through fuel? Or perhaps I should move out of your way? This is the argument you are using for bikes, why don't you want to apply it to other cars?

 

 

That's just some nonsense that you claim. Of course cyclists can cause a delay to other motorists. It entirely depends on the circumstances of the journey.

No, through the use of simple logic we can establish that bikes do not cause any delay to motorists in the vast majority of cases.

I doubt that you can even make up a story where you've actually been delayed by a cyclist, never mind have a true one to share.

 

 

You are more likely to be taken off the road due to penalty points for speeding than for dangerous driving.

Of course, speeding is far more common than dangerous driving.

But either way, the police should continue to try to remove dangerous drivers, and that includes ones who overtake dangerously.

 

It's hardly irrelevant to point out that cycling is a choice and by making that choice you will be putting yourself in a vulnerable position due to having minimal crash protection in an arena full of the general public, many of whom will have little interest in paying proper attention of doing things properly.

It's not untrue, but it is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the police targeting drivers who overtake cyclists dangerously.

 

Another motorist will have registration plates for identification and is less likely to make off up the pavement afterwards.

My car has been damaged in the past by motorists whilst parked who have made off. It has never been damaged by a cyclist. That's obviously an anecdote, but given the number of threads on the forum about car park damage, and the lack of any threads about cyclist damage, I think it's safe to assume that damage caused by another motorist is more likely and that if they can they will do a runner.

 

 

Predictable that someone would be along to make this proclamation. Ironic, that you don't realise that it is possible to pass on the left legally.

In some limited circumstances yes, but not in the manner which you described, which to be clear was deliberately undertaking a car which was using the overtaking lane for no reason.

Not queuing traffic, not indicating to make a right turn... What you described was an illegal undertake.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 12:37 ----------

 

If the driver tries to swerve, it can do. Not to mention the possibility of killing others.

 

I'll be a pedant, but if a car swerves into something (tree for example) it is not a bike riding into a car which has killed the occupants, it is the car driving into a tree.

Bikes hitting cars cannot kill the occupants. Cars hitting bikes can and do kill the cyclists.

[RootsBooster]

 

I'll be a pedant, but if a car swerves into something (tree for example) it is not a bike riding into a car which has killed the occupants, it is the car driving into a tree.

 

Of course that's technically correct.

In a court of law though, if there was concrete evidence showing that a cyclist was riding dangerously and gave a driver no option other than to swerve (or continue and likely kill the cyclist) then it may be that the court would find the cyclist to blame. I'm not a judge, barrister or law student, so this is just speculation on my part.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 12:46 ----------

 

I'm sure you know the answer to that. Car insurance, heavily taxed fuel, M.O.T. preparation and testing and, likely VED too. Regardless of 1938, as you'll be aware, it is still a legal requirement to pay it as applicable.

 

I think you've answered your own point just fine there. Like many Motor vehicles, VED is not applicable to bicycles.

[Cyclone]

You're probably correct about how guilt would be assigned, it's the actions of the cyclist that cause the crash, not the cyclist hitting the car that kills the occupants.

So whilst cyclists can cause danger (I agree), the danger they are put in by cars is far greater than the danger they create.